|
I ran into what I believe is a Yak-52 soviet-era trainer on the flight line a few weeks ago. I thought the guy in the little airport restaurant wearing a flightsuit was kind of a tool, but then he straps on a harness and climbs into this. My case of smug turned into envy pretty fast.  This thing absolutely belched black smoke when they started it up. fake edit: Yep, it's a 52. Says so on the nose. edit 2: probably manufactured in the nineties, just a neat paint job.
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 06:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 20:15 |
|
|
  quote:Yak-52  From the Kalamazoo Air Zoo   glassbottle fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Jun 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 06:51
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Persistence/uncertainty. The US didn't have reliable ASAT technology until the '80s. The Soviets had a deployed FOBS by the late '60s, which meant for a decade and a half anything in orbit was more or less untouchable (barring some insane Moonraker style mission with Gemini or Apollo or something). Additionally, even though we eventually deployed PAVE Paws to cover the south (see below), our radars were predominantly to the north during the bulk of the Cold War. FOBS also resulted in reduced warning time compared to traditional launches, particularly after the deployment of the DSP satellites. The DSP satellites provided instant warning as soon as a missile launched, providing around 27-28 minutes of warning, as long as it wasn't something funky like a depressed trajectory SLBM launch. With FOBS, you can detect the launch, but then you just watch it in orbit, waiting for it to come down. This decreases the amount of warning time considerably, which was why FOBS was considered incredibly destabilizing. Actually deploying an operational FOBS warhead would be just about the same thing as parking a bunch of SLBMs off the Eastern Seaboard and opening missile tube doors. Good points, I forgot about FOBS. I was thinking more in terms of a manned weapons platform, with a long orbital residence time like battleship Orion. I expect that launching an armed nuclear orbiter like FOBS is going to be almost as provocative as an actual ICBM launch, since the warning time you get is only the time it takes the RV to deorbit and reenter the atmosphere, rather than the whole boost phase-ballistic flight-atmospheric reentry. The focus on early warning radar in the North was a cause of some concern when it seemed that the Soviets were operating a long range nuclear powered bomber (that turned out not to actually exist) that would allow bombers to attack from any direction. Here's an excerpt from a report to the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion office.    Yes that's a Bounder, which as we know now is certainly not nuclear powered.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 12:01
|
|
|
Frozen Horse posted:With that sort of thrust capacity, you don't play with orbital nuclear weapons. True MAD is bolting an Orion thruster onto a likely member of the outer Kupier Belt, riding the gravitational slingshot of one or more outer planets for more velocity and windage adjustment, and well and truly loving this gay earth. Sure, it might take decades to get here, but what's a little patience when designing a last-strike system? I'm just going off of the Dyson TED talk where he showed a concept drawing of a USAF version of Orion, loaded with nukes and sent up there as a sort of space station. It's not that they were using Orion as a huge ICBM, it had other missiles loaded into it to be fired from orbit at multiple targets. The Orion vehicle would have been a sort of ICBM carrier, like an outer space submarine. I don't even think they had thought of kinetic weapons in the early 60's like that. You're right though, that is the top of the MAD food chain. Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 12:39 on Jun 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 12:37
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joupmq4e2eM Watching this sort of stuff sends shivers down my spine.  This is a Chesley Bonestell piece depicting a 20 kiloton atomic explosion over a major US city. Illustrations like this, in major publications, helped to personalize the specter of atomic war.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 13:18
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:atlas silo's Once I knew what they were, I started noticing them all over the place in north/central Montana for (I presume) Malmstrom out of Great Falls. The ones I saw are literally right next to the highway, not much further than most gas stations would be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 14:23
|
|
|
Coldwar CAS. Impala Mk2 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 14:25
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Once I knew what they were, I started noticing them all over the place in north/central Montana for (I presume) Malmstrom out of Great Falls. The ones I saw are literally right next to the highway, not much further than most gas stations would be. Yup, Malmstrom. When they had Big Sky Day (base open-house/airshow), they'd run tours through the command-capsure simulator. (They also did the with the Civil Air Patrol.) I got to turn the key on two seperate occasions.  They also used to drive these through town (Great Falls):  Although I never got to see this:  http://www.truckaccidents360.com/blog/317/military-semi-trailer-with-missile-parts-overturns/
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 18:43
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:If you are interested in the types of weapons that said illiterate cave dweller has been using to attack U.S./ISAF troops, check out some of Chivers' dispatches for the NYT's "At War" blog. Some amazing ingenuity right next to some incredible I was one of those ISAF troops so I am very aware of what they're using. I meant illiterate cave dweller in a literal, non sarcastic sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 18:59
|
|
and some 
.
|
Diver Dick posted:I ran into what I believe is a Yak-52 soviet-era trainer on the flight line a few weeks ago. I thought the guy in the little airport restaurant wearing a flightsuit was kind of a tool, but then he straps on a harness and climbs into this. My case of smug turned into envy pretty fast. What airport? I saw one at the Boundary Bay airport about 5 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 19:16
|
|
|
That was 11R, Brenham, TX. I can't read the tail number anymore but I looked it up at the time and the Yak was flying out of Houston. Dude flew his Soviet airframe up the road to have a bite to eat!
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 02:42
|
|
|
ming-the-mazdaless posted:Coldwar CAS. You need to post more stuff from the Bush Wars, because I was unaware the SAAF had those aircraft until I looked it up, although it didn't surprise me. Flanker posted:I was one of those ISAF troops so I am very aware of what they're using. I meant illiterate cave dweller in a literal, non sarcastic sense. Oh, absolutely...I didn't mean to come off like I was lecturing you or thought you were being sarcastic or anything. I was being sincere as well; this is the story I was talking about. It's well worth a read, but anything by Chivers usually is. I particularly liked the whipit stock-less AK-47 with the jury rigged cloth "sling." Ygolonac posted:Although I never got to see this: Funny story about that particular accident...here's a link to the AIB (Accident Investigation Board) report. Here's the juicy excerpt: quote:On 31 August 2009, at approximately 1515 CDT, 2015 Zulu, a Payload Transporter (PT) carrying a Propulsion System Rocket Engine (PSRE) and Missile Guidance Set (MGS), overturned onto its side in a ditch approximately 2.1 miles southof Launch Facility Juliet 10, in Mountrail County, North Dakota, when the driver veered off the gravel road while distracted by a large insect that had entered the truck through the driver's open window. So yeah, a tractor/trailer carrying ICBM components drove off the road into a ditch because the driver was getting attacked by a fly or hornet or wasp or something. I would've paid good money to see this go down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 12:03
|
|
|
Gun camera imagery. Impala Mk2 taking out a Hind.  The Impalas were used to dissuade heliborne operations during this particular phase of the bushwar and accounted for 6 helicopter kills in two days - a mixture of Mi-24 and Mi-17. Helicopters were never used against UNITA/SADF again. In fact, all heliborne ops were forbidden except to evacuate soviet advisors from certain death. iyaayas01 posted:You need to post more stuff from the Bush Wars, because I was unaware the SAAF had those aircraft until I looked it up, although it didn't surprise me. In the meantime: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29ev3gurrys The only thing special about that clip is that it's an F1 with a Klimov RD-33 shoehorned into it. ming-the-mazdaless fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Jun 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 19:37
|
|
|
oops http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aydbBl6_W0
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 04:19
|
|
|
Harriers are probably the most dangerous fixed wing airframe we have in service right now. They are pretty accident prone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 04:22
|
|
|
Uh, I hope his plane was kind of broken pre-landing because if not he just looks like he was hooning around and hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 04:24
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Uh, I hope his plane was kind of broken pre-landing because if not he just looks like he was hooning around and hosed up. IIRC the aircraft suffered a loss of engine power on final (not complete engine failure, because you can hear the engine spin up as he tries to compensate), and being hot, high, and heavy, compounded by the fact that Hawker Siddeley/BAE forgot to include a wing when designing the Harrier, there wasn't much the pilot could do. Nice to see the explosive filler in those Paveways really is insensitive. For what happens when you're dealing with fire and non-insensitive munitions, see the Forrestal fire.  Less than 90 seconds from the initial flames to the first explosion; the first group of firefighters never had a chance. Sailors to the End is a very good book about the disaster and the efforts of the sailors on board to fight the fire. They came very very close to losing the vessel. This reminds me, awhile back I promised a post on explosive mishaps and explosives safety...maybe I'll work on that tonight. Zero-zero ejection seats are pretty awesome though. It seems pretty mundane I guess since we're used to it, but the fact that you can punch out of an aircraft scraping down the runway and suffer only minor injuries is pretty mind blowing when you consider where the technology was only 3-4 decades ago. Here's a story with an interview from the pilot... quote:The Harrier scraped along the runway at 80mph on collision course with the civilian plane, which had eight people on board. Pretty big ones on that guy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 05:47
|
|
|
Ygolonac posted:Yup, Malmstrom. When they had Big Sky Day (base open-house/airshow), they'd run tours through the command-capsure simulator. (They also did the with the Civil Air Patrol.) I got to turn the key on two seperate occasions. If you look at my google earth links you can see one of these payload vans straddling an open hole at the training facility.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 06:04
|
|
|
Snark You may also be interested in the blog Atomic Annihilation. e: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 11:12
|
|
|
What were the missions fighters were suposed to fullfil if the USSR or NATO decided to attack? I don't mean the first flight but the ones after the roads would be covered with refugees, airstrips pokemarked by cruise missiles or commandos and carriers becoming fish preserves via postcoital ASM salvo. Also was the bug in the F22 that prevented it from crossing the international date line a DRM thing to force the US to buy another version for the pacific? Glad to hear the stealth coating being eroded by rain was more or less disinformation. I guess that european planes aren't designed with LO first probably because people were too aware that there would be radars everywhere and lighting things up from every angle so all other things to sacrifice would be too great to consider stealth a priority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2011 18:36
|
|
|
SIGSEGV posted:What were the missions fighters were suposed to fullfil if the USSR or NATO decided to attack? I don't mean the first flight but the ones after the roads would be covered with refugees, airstrips pokemarked by cruise missiles or commandos and carriers becoming fish preserves via postcoital ASM salvo. Don't have time to answer this now, but be expecting a long drawn out roles/missions related discussion when I get back from shooting/eating Moose's Tooth, probably sometime tonight or tomorrow. But real quick, probably the most important reason that the Euro-canards didn't have LO first was just cost/benefit trade-off...same reason the Russians didn't put LO first in their fighters (using the LO/performance/payload three way discussion I had earlier in the thread). The only country in the world that has the money to pursue not one but two fighter programs that put LO first in the design criteria is the United States. What remains to be seen is whether the cost was worth the benefit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2011 21:37
|
|
|
SIGSEGV posted:What were the missions fighters were supposed to fulfill if the USSR or NATO decided to attack? To prevent as much ordinance as possible from touching your home nation (Interceptor), to gently caress up your opponent's fighter ability (Air Dominance) and to disrupt your enemies supply lines (Interdiction). Also specialized fighters have lots of other roles, although 'fighter' gets blurry when you have fighter jet airframes performing SEAD, EW, CAS, Recon and other attack/bomber missions. In your post apocalyptic road warrior scenario, whomever can scrape together a functioning squadron of tough, easily serviced multi-role jets can easily dominate their region.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2011 22:49
|
|
|
Flanker posted:To prevent as much ordinance as possible from touching your home nation (Interceptor), to gently caress up your opponent's fighter ability (Air Dominance) and to disrupt your enemies supply lines (Interdiction). Also specialized fighters have lots of other roles, although 'fighter' gets blurry when you have fighter jet airframes performing SEAD, EW, CAS, Recon and other attack/bomber missions. My post apocalyptic road warrior scenario is that infrastructure aircraft depend on would be hosed up pretty early in the war and that it would limit their relevance. Of course I am not dissing the amount of damage an aircraft can inflict, just that it might be pretty hard to it set up and that the way they were planned to be used might be slightly optimistic about this. iyaayas01 posted:Don't have time to answer this now, but be expecting a long drawn out roles/missions related discussion when I get back from shooting/eating Moose's Tooth, probably sometime tonight or tomorrow. Happy eating and shooting, please don't do both at once. Are there any aircraft that are actively being developped by the USoA other than super deathmobiles like a replacement refueler, transport, transport viable for carriers, dedicated CAS? I know approximately fuckall about combat aircraft and the thing that bought me to read about them was the sheer hilarity of the F22 segfaulting like a first year student's turdy program over the internationnal date line. Another thing, when supercruising, wouldn't the air around an aircraft heat up a whole loving lot and make them pretty visible to IR detection? (I also seem to remember something about hot air reflecting radar waves pretty well, so...) SIGSEGV fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Jun 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2011 23:30
|
|
|
SIGSEGV posted:My post apocalyptic road warrior scenario is that infrastructure aircraft depend on would be hosed up pretty early in the war and that it would limit their relevance. Of course I am not dissing the amount of damage an aircraft can inflict, just that it might be pretty hard to it set up and that the way they were planned to be used might be slightly optimistic about this. Cold War going hot would either be a nuke exchange and be over in a matter of hours, or a prolonged conventional campaign. Beyond Cold War planning, you still want flexible, tough aircraft that can operate from hastily prepared airfields because you never know where the next mission will be or when your parts and tool supply will dry up/get cut off. Air superiority is a huge game changer, even with limited resources. In an all out war, some aircraft would need a pump truck to get fuel in it, and a basic scissor lift to attach ordnance (smaller missles can be done by hand on some airframes). That's it. SIGSEGV posted:Another thing, when supercruising, wouldn't the air around an aircraft heat up a whole loving lot and make them pretty visible to IR detection? (I also seem to remember something about hot air reflecting radar waves pretty well, so...) The SR71 got hot because it was doing Mach 3.5+, an F22 is just doing supersonic for a prolonged period. I don't think it gets as hot as the Blackbird did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2011 23:49
|
|
|
SIGSEGV posted:
The KC-X program has been back and forth but was approved in February. The USAF's Pave Hawk replacement CSAR-X is still canceled last I heard. There's also some back and forth over a C-130 replacement but the Europeans are the only ones with viable alternatives and no one wants to buy non-American.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2011 00:00
|
|
|
Propagandalf posted:The KC-X program has been back and forth but was approved in February. The USAF's Pave Hawk replacement CSAR-X is still canceled last I heard. There's also some back and forth over a C-130 replacement but the Europeans are the only ones with viable alternatives and no one wants to buy non-American. The C-130J is basically a whole new aircraft and is ultimately going to replace all the legacy 130's. We'll be buying the C-27 soon. The CV-22 is a fancy transport helicopter. We just finished the C-17 buy. The KC-X is a few years out. The RPAs are being bought hand over fist. There's all the civilian planes were buying up for spec ops and ISR missions (NSAs and MC-12's). There's a lot of nondeathmobile aircraft in the pipeline!
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2011 03:14
|
|
|
To answer SIGSEGV's question of aircraft other than fixed-wing fighter aircraft there's quite a few down the pipe, but many of it is essentially derivative aircraft or more capable unmanned. USAF's KC-46A is by far the largest in terms of budget allocation, but is essentially a commercial derivative aircraft with most of the non-recurring budget going into software. USAF's C-130AMP will re-capitalize and streamline the avionics packages on most c-130s, no need for a c-130 replacement. Full rate production will happen, just a matter of whether it will be Boeing or someone else. US Navy's P-8 is a P-3 replacement using a commercial derivative aircraft in a ASW/ASuW role. USAF's JSTARs re-engine may turn into a whole new program since an analysis of alternatives is being conducted as the P-8 as a viable replacement. Rivet Joint may see the same for that matter. Army/USMC's cargo UAS will be an unmanned rotorcraft providing the ability to deliver cargo in austere areas. USMC's STUAS is an unmanned isr/strike platform providing a tier 2 unmanned capability. C-27 buy won't happen in big numbers, we have all the tactical lift we need and even more so when they move from 2 to 1 major combat operations. On the strike side, UCLASS (the unmanned carrier based strike aircraft), Next gen bomber, and next gen air dominance (F/A-18EF replacement) are all in the pipeline in the 10-15 year time frame. CAS aircraft in any significant numbers won't happen, we're pulling out, party is over. Really with the exception of the old tanker fleet as well as some of the manned ISR fleet, there's no need to have new programs of record, and even then there's no need for any new cutting edge platform development. There really is no need for anything fancy. The trend now and for the next few years will be platforms that meet the requirements and have life cycle costs that are understood by the services.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2011 03:40
|
|
|
Anything new in the bomb truck department or is it still either modified fighters / Bones and bombers from half a world away? I love the way those fighter airframes are getting used though, that EF/AB/everythingelse-18 picture is adorable. Another thing: how do you resupply a carrier group at sea? I imagine cargo planes but they'd need to be kinda small because I don't think people would land on carrier decks with a large plane like in that test posted earlier in the thread. daskrolator posted:USMC's STUAS is an unmanned isr/strike platform providing a tier 2 unmanned capability. What are those tiers? Is it ordnance used, who gets to say the "cleared to fire" or types as in tac bombing is tier 1, CAS is tier 2... Flanker posted:The SR71 got hot because it was doing Mach 3.5+, an F22 is just doing supersonic for a prolonged period. I don't think it gets as hot as the Blackbird did. I guess so, I remembered reading about high & fast flying jets getting a pink/purple tint on the canopy due to heated air. Might have been about the MIG-25.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2011 06:59
|
|
|
To add a bit to daskrolator's excellent comments...daskrolator posted:USAF's JSTARs re-engine may turn into a whole new program since an analysis of alternatives is being conducted as the P-8 as a viable replacement. Rivet Joint may see the same for that matter. This is particularly ironic given the fact that the USAF just went down this road with the (now cancelled) E-10 AWACS/JSTARS/RJ do it all airframe. daskrolator posted:C-27 buy won't happen in big numbers, we have all the tactical lift we need and even more so when they move from 2 to 1 major combat operations. And pretty soon after that, none. daskrolator posted:CAS aircraft in any significant numbers won't happen, we're pulling out, party is over. Significant numbers, no, but there are a few light attack programs out there...AFSOC has been toying with a manned light attack aircraft, either an AT-6B or a Super Tucano, while Naval Special Warfare has already picked up a few armed Super Tucanos for use with the Imminent Fury program. But yeah, no need to have a shitload of CAS specific aircraft that are useless against anyone with half an air defense system if you are pretty much done fighting insurgencies against some dudes in a cave....which like it or not, the political/fiscal reality is that the US is pretty much done fighting that type of conflict in a large scale (SOF/CIA type dudes is another story entirely). daskrolator posted:The trend now and for the next few years will be platforms that meet the requirements and have life cycle costs that are understood by the services. With an emphasis on understanding life cycle costs. The next couple of decades are going to be lean ones. Flanker posted:Air superiority is a huge game changer, even with limited resources. In an all out war, some aircraft would need a pump truck to get fuel in it, and a basic scissor lift to attach ordnance (smaller missles can be done by hand on some airframes). That's it. Yup, it is interesting to look at air superiority in the context of a smaller scale conflict, such as some of the African Bush Wars or the Falklands Conflict, for example. Local air superiority was, in some of those cases, literally the difference between victory and defeat. Like Flanker said, in the post apocalyptic scenario the side that can scrape together a functioning squadron of light attack aircraft capable of carrying a Sidewinder or two is going to have a large advantage. Hell, the Road Warrior just had an autogyro. Also worth mentioning that if you want to see what is the minimum amount of stuff you need to maintain an aircraft, look at what the Navy uses on their carriers. Watching the Navy conduct ops from a land base is an eye opening experience...just from a weapons standpoint, the USAF uses jammers (powered lift trucks) to load everything but AIM-9s (our smallest air to air missile). The Navy, on the other hand, uses manpower to load a LOT of their ordnance, including AIM-120s and some of the smaller bombs. Not much extra room on a carrier, so the amount of support equipment is minimal. To add onto what Flanker mentioned regarding roles/missions, US/NATO doctrine is to push air superiority/supremacy as far forward of the FEBA as possible. The reasons for doing this should be fairly obvious...keeps enemy aircraft off your ground troops/airbases/infrastructure, allows you to strike the enemy's stuff, puts the enemy off the initiative, etc. Flanker did a good job of laying out the basics of the different roles/missions of different types of fighters. Since air superiority/supremacy fighters have increased in performance, the same aircraft can perform both defensive counter-air (attacking enemy aircraft as they head towards your territory, whether short notice alert bird interception or longer notice vectored interception), and offensive counter-air (attacking enemy aircraft over their own territory in an offensive manner...fighter sweeps, stuff like that). However, that doesn't tell the whole story because as Flanker alluded to, most fighter aircraft these days are multi-role (in fact, the only aircraft in the US/NATO inventory that are straight air to air fighters are the USAF's Eagle, the RAF's Tornado ADV, and France's Mirage 2000, while the only straight air to ground fighters is the Tornado IDS that is used by the UK, Germany, and Italy). However, not every unit is going to perform every mission. Each unit has what's called a DOC (Designed Operational Capability) Statement. In layman's terms, this lays out the mission(s) that each unit is responsible for carrying out. Some multi-role fighters might have a primary air to air mission with a secondary interdiction mission, others might have a primary SEAD mission with a secondary interdiction mission, some might have a primary CAS mission with a secondary air to air mission, etc. This determines stuff like the training each unit conducts, the munitions they expect to carry, any specialized equipment they need to load up with, etc. For example, certain F-16 units have F-16CJs that perform the SEAD mission. While these aircraft are capable of performing the standard F-16 missions of air to air or air to ground, these units carry and train with the HARM missile and the HARM Targeting System pod, which enable them to carry out this specialized mission. So basically what I'm saying is that while we have multi-role fighters that can perform a variety of missions, it's not like we have a massive pool of fighters to parcel out to whatever mission is necessary. Each unit is going to train to a given set of missions, even if its platform is capable of performing other missions. Also worth mentioning that your concerns about infrastructure damage is what led to a) increased hardening/dispersion of NATO air forces, b) the ability and training to operate from the autobahn/other major highways, and c) the emphasis on V/STOL fighter aircraft. V/STOL was hailed as "we'll fight from parking lots or a plot in the woods," but this isn't really feasible because of the logistics support required for continued operations. Yes, you only need a fuel truck and a jammer, but that only generates one sortie. Where is the fuel/ordnance coming from for the next week's worth of sorties? What happens when something on the jet breaks? The real reason V/STOL was developed was to allow aircraft to operate from an airbase where the runway had been cratered/cut short. While the infrastructure on the base would be degraded, it would still likely be functional and able to provide support as long as the aircraft could get airborne from the shorter runway. Proving that nothing is ever really new, the USAF is beginning to consider the hardening/dispersion route with its airbases in Asia, to provide increased deterrence against a near-peer competitor China. Finally, the issue with the F-22 and the date line was just a bug in the code; bug's been fixed and the jet is good to go...although you should go to LockMart and suggest your DRM/two versions idea. I'm sure they'd eat up any way to force the customer to buy more jets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2011 08:13
|
|
|
SIGSEGV posted:Anything new in the bomb truck department or is it still either modified fighters / Bones and bombers from half a world away? Besides the JSF, not really. The Navy is buying more Super Hornets, and the USAF has this supposed Next-Gen bomber project that I don't think anyone really expects to come to fruition. SIGSEGV posted:Another thing: how do you resupply a carrier group at sea? I imagine cargo planes but they'd need to be kinda small because I don't think people would land on carrier decks with a large plane like in that test posted earlier in the thread. UNREP, either CONREP, with lines/pipes connecting the ships while they sail alongside each other, or VERTREP with helicopters sling loading pallets of stuff from ship to ship. The Navy's COD (carrier onboard delivery) aircraft is the C-2 Greyhound, which is a modified version of the E-2 AEW bird. SIGSEGV posted:What are those tiers? Is it ordnance used, who gets to say the "cleared to fire" or types as in tac bombing is tier 1, CAS is tier 2... The tiers are (IIRC) the size/performance of the UAV.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2011 08:27
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Significant numbers, no, but there are a few light attack programs out there...AFSOC has been toying with a manned light attack aircraft, either an AT-6B or a Super Tucano, while Naval Special Warfare has already picked up a few armed Super Tucanos for use with the Imminent Fury program. But yeah, no need to have a shitload of CAS specific aircraft that are useless against anyone with half an air defense system if you are pretty much done fighting insurgencies against some dudes in a cave....which like it or not, the political/fiscal reality is that the US is pretty much done fighting that type of conflict in a large scale (SOF/CIA type dudes is another story entirely). I agree in that the SOF budgets will continue to grow because the fact of the matter is they are still immensely small budgets compared to the services. They could triple their budget and it would essentially a rounding error. More generally I think the services are finally coming to terms with the fact that with the exception of a small list of missions, the current generation of platforms is suitable for the tasks in the future. We don't need next gen lift (although joint future theater lift gets talked about every few years), we don't need next gen rotorcraft, and we really don't need next gen surface fleet. C-130s and Chinooks, their production lines were started in the 50s and 60s respectively, both saw combat in the Vietnam war, and have new orders for years to come. Their operating and maintenance costs are understood not just by the DoD but also by dozens of international customers. With the exception of incremental fuel efficiency improvements and upgrades to avionics packages, there's no need to procure a next generation of platforms. They are the Browning M2s of their respective markets. This is not to say that our current platforms don't need replacing, the age and use of these platforms have to be re-capitalized, it's just blasphemy to say that we should replace them with current generation equivalents.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2011 15:03
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Like Flanker said.. what Flanker mentioned.. as Flanker alluded to.. This made my day! I'm not even airforce! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2011 16:42
|
|
|
Thanks for the infodump everyone. Since one of the fighter masturbation videos had a soviet anti air gun firing what appeared to be popguns at a magical merkin aircraft, has the USoA anything new or recent in that department? I've read about the M163 Vulcan and the M247 Sergeant York but they must be reaching a canonical age by now. Also it appears the US had 120 mm AAA in Korea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2011 17:11
|
|
|
SIGSEGV posted:Also it appears the US had 120 mm AAA in Korea. In Korea, everyone was still (in part) fighting the last war, when big (fairly) slow strategic bombers were lumbering their way around using prop engines, and you had time to heave a big heavy shell up to their altitude - if your bomber stream is enough to darken the sky, it's a lot easier to hit *something* up there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2011 17:52
|
|
|
SIGSEGV posted:Thanks for the infodump everyone. US air defense doesn't give a poo poo about cannons at all, with the exception of C-RAM and the system C-RAM came from, which is the vulcan defenses on Navy ships for combating cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles, etc. C-RAM is strictly for mortar, artillery, rocket fire and while it COULD be used against aircraft, it is in no way intended for that at all. C-RAM videos, because they're neat: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=27b_1218838922 This one doesn't show a clear intercept. Not sure if they missed, the video just doesn't capture it, or what. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iix-zREQboI&feature=related Two intercepts, one impact. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsnhyTiTqk4 Clear videos of intercepts, because these are taken during testing. The mass of explosions at the end of the flight are the rounds self-destructing so that you don't have a pile of live explosive rounds sitting outside of all the FOBs with C-RAM. Technically, the Avenger system has an M3P .50 caliber machine gun on it, but its primary weapon system is definitely the stinger. The M3P has been used against ground targets in Iraq, though. edit: Vulcan tracked vehicle is long retired, SGT York never got out of testing much, because it sucked. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Jul 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2011 17:59
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iix-zREQboI&feature=related Two intercepts, one impact. drat, the SOUND of that thing is beautiful.  
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2011 18:21
|
|
|
I haven't had the fortune of hearing it up close at all, but the C-130 pilots I talked to who had said they'd almost rather we just let the mortars hit because the sound of the gun is so loud and horrifying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2011 18:25
|
|
|
The line of tracers hanging in the night sky is pretty nice. Here's a Thud: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2011 18:34
|
|
|
SIGSEGV posted:Thanks for the infodump everyone. The Americans can't even contemplate conducting an operation without total air supremacy so mounting AAA and SAMs on Humvees starts to look crazy. The Russians on the other hand, never assume supremacy in a given theater so they roll with those badass self propelled SAM/AAA combo things like the Tunguska aka SA19 Grison and shitloads of MANPADS. Both of these mentalities were developed in WW2
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2011 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 20:15 |
|
|
Sunday Punch posted:The line of tracers hanging in the night sky is pretty nice. Here's a Thud: I missed a turn on the way back from the Zoo yesterday, and came across a body shop with a couple dozen Vietnam-era aircraft and helicopters in the back lot, including one whole F-105, one in many many small bits, a bunch of chopped up Dog Sabres, several Shooting Stars, and a couple Mohawks, and bunch of Choctaws and flying bananas. Interestingly, they've got more crap there now than they did when Google Maps last flew over.  3000chouteau by RReiheld, on Flickr The Thud appears to have spent some time in smaller pieces at AMARC, if google is telling me true. http://maps.google.com/maps?q=3000+...519531&t=h&z=20 Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Jul 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2011 20:03
|
|
